We join all peaceful and law-abiding citizens in condemning in the strongest possible terms the recent string of shooting crimes committed in Laguna. These heinous crimes having been committed by criminals using unlicensed firearms, must be meted out with swift justice and given the maximum penalties imposable under the law. We likewise condole with the families and loved ones of the victims of these incidents and join them in seeking justice against the perpetrators.

The prevalence of criminality of such nature is a public safety and security problem which must be addressed by law enforcement. Guns being inanimate objects do not cause such crimes. Rather, it is the criminals who misuse unlicensed guns which create crimes of this nature, and who are the ones who must be brought to justice.

The public however should be cautioned against the usual knee jerk reactions of groups that are out to ban the right of law abiding citizens to keep and hold licensed firearms for protection and personal security. The records of the PNP show that in 2007 of the total number of firearms involved in crimes, 5,525 or more than 99% of firearms were used by lawless elements, and were unlicensed. We believe that gun bans are not the solution to such problems, but rather may even exacerbate the problem of criminality by rendering the law abiding public defenseless against such insensible attacks by criminals.

As we have witnessed, the police are not around always to protect each and every citizen from criminal violence. Let us not add more tragedies to the already long list of citizens who have been victims of violent crime. Had the victims been armed and trained in the use of firearms, lives could have been saved. Each and every person has the inalienable right under the law to defend himself and his family from criminals.

A gun ban will not curb crime, as we witness in our elections. In spite of the so-called Comelec Gun ban, numerous innocent people fall victim to criminal election violence. In the end, criminals are the only ones who benefit from a gun ban, since they prey more easily on their hapless victims.

Let us address and solve criminality through more effective law enforcement bolstered by public cooperation. In this regard, we are always supportive of law enforcement in whatever way we can to prevent such tragedies from happening again.

Atty. Jay Jay Mendoza
Progun President

horge

05-22-2008, 18:05

Amen.
About fracking time they did something other than flog car stickers.

dinggaling

05-22-2008, 18:43

Amen.
About fracking time they did something other than flog car stickers.

true, that's why i did not bother to renew my membership! :steamed:

9MX

05-22-2008, 19:21

I appreciate the statement, pero parang may kulang, bitin. I just can't specify what.

horge

05-23-2008, 18:51

I appreciate the statement, pero parang may kulang, bitin. I just can't specify what.

:)

It stirs not our souls to sharpen our swords
It mumbles when it needs to shout.
But better the stutterer stumbling for words
Than poets who will not speak out.

h.

Poodle

05-25-2008, 18:27

There's a Vic Olegar (not sure about the name) - radio announcer of DZRJ witha 10AM slot who is Pro responsible ownership of guns. As I understand it, he is a shooter himself. He was villifying Congressman Joson in his program.

9MX

05-25-2008, 21:43

:)

It stirs not our souls to sharpen our swords
It mumbles when it needs to shout.
But better the stutterer stumbling for words
Than poets who will not speak out.

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

pogi

05-29-2008, 22:16

The most comprehensively-expressive thought I've read and learned re: gun ownership and possession.:agree:

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.